Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
Gottlieb Daimler- and Karl Benz-Foundation
Kolleg: "Organizational Learning in Various Environmental Conditions"
Management science
and
organizational learning
Peter Pawlowsky
To appear in:
Dierkes, M.; Berthoin-Antal, A.; Child, J.; Nonaka, I. (Eds.):
Handbook of Organisational Learning and Knowledge
Oxford University Press
Summer 2001
20.12.2000
Institute for Personnel Management and Leadership studies
Chemnitz University of Technology
TU Chemnitz: Tel: (0371) 531-4312 and 531-8354; Fax: (0371) 531-4342
Internet: http:\\www.tu-chemnitz.de/wirtschaft/bwl6/
e-mail: Peter.Pawlowsky@wirtschaft.tu-chemnitz.de
1
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
2
1. Introduction
What is commonly shared in the literature on management is the emphasis and the need for
concepts of organizational change which are more suitable for a business environment that is
becoming increasingly more turbulent and complex. The interpretative framework for this
situation varies, however, and encompasses a number of scenarios such as a post-industrial
society, a service economy and a knowledge society. All these scenarios catch some aspects
of a radical change in economic and social conditions that are occurring. The core notion of
all of these assumptions and the major impact on management seems to be the fact that this
change involves a declining importance of physical assets and a growing importance of
intangible assets. This means that management is not only confronted with new combinations
and new patterns of old variables but also, that the logic of business itself and the assets that
it is dealing with are involved in a fundamental change.
What management has primeraly focused on from early industrialization is the transformation
of physical resources under conditions of the division of labor. What it will have to learn is
the transformation of informational and knowledge resources under conditions of integration.
Innovation, growth and productivity gains do not result from separating task in the workflow
of a knowledge intensive operation, but rather from integrating and combining knowledge in
order to develop new ideas and jointly develop solutions in problem solving processes.
Traditionally management concepts and tools have specialized in dealing with the
transformation of physical resources. Increase in value attained by economic activities is
measured as the difference between the raw product and the production process's output.
Besides the increase in speed and decrease in failure obtained through learning curve effects,
little is known about the role of knowledge and learning as a promoter of change and added
value. One of the major challenges for management is to understand the role of knowledge
and learning for organizational change and business success. Quinn (1992) for example
argues that the organization of enterprises and effective strategies increasingly depend more
on the development and deployment of intellectual resources than on the management of
physical assets: ‘As a company focuses ever more on its own internal knowledge and service
skills and those of its suppliers, it increasingly finds that managing shifts away from the
overseeing and deployment of fiscal and physical assets and toward the management of
human skills, knowledge bases, and intellect both within the company and in its suppliers’
(Quinn 1992: 72). Similarly Boisot (1995) concludes that ‘we have an economic theory that
can help us to understand and manage the production and exchange of tangible goods but
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
3
which is unable to help us understand and manage intangibles like knowledge’ (Boisot 1995).
Even the traditional accounting principles are being questioned and altered in order to capture
the true value generating resources (Kaplan and Norton 1996; Sveiby 1997). Based on studies
of performance measurement, Kaplan et al. (1996) argue that financial indicators of business
success are no longer sufficient – companies in the Information society have to invest into
their intellectual capital and they have to assess new indicators beyond the traditional
financial scores in order to succeed (see also the contribution by Reinhardt et al. in this book).
According to Sveiby (1997) especially knowledge intensive organizations have to free
themselves from the mental strait-jackets of the industrial age by employing strategies that
focus on intangible rather than tangible assets if they want to succeed. Which solutions can
management science offer to organizational decision makers in order to cope with these
challenges of the information society? Let us therefore review the development of theoretical
insights on organizational change and learning and subsequently question the practical
implications that can be derived from this theoretical work for management.
2. Theoretical Perspectives on organizational change
The topic of organizational change is not new to management science. Since it became
apparent that there is no one best way to manage an organization that fits all circumstances
alike the question arose which solution best fits which circumstances. Hence the relation
between organizations and its environment can be identified as a central issue of theoretical
perspectives on organizational change. What differs between the approaches is mainly the
assumption of correct solutions to the management of this relationship. On a global level
several authors have grouped the theoretical approaches according to different schools or lines
of thinking. Astley, Van de Ven (1983) distinguish deterministic from voluntaristic
orientations. Pfeffer (1982) differentiates three perspectives: (1) purposive, intentional, goal
directed and rational perspectives, (2) externally constrained and controlled models and
finally (3) emergent, almost random perspectives. Scott (1992) uses two basic dimensions for
his systematization of organizational theory. On the one hand he distinguishes between
closed systems models and open system models and on the other dimension he differentiates
different levels of analysis such as the social psychological, the structural and the ecological
level.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
4
Looking more closely at these theoretical approaches we see that early deterministic
approaches are rooted in economic thinking which is based on the assumption of
equilibrium states of the firm. Here organizational behavior is conceived only in direct
reaction to market prices and demands. There is only one best way to manage a business
which is strictly determined by markets (Debreu 1954; Zimmerman 1961; Schumann 1976;
Jensen 1983; Schreyögg 1996). Managements task here is to keep the organization in balance
with theses market forces. Evolutionary approaches such as population ecology do not
define rules but interpret survival of organizations as being based on environmental selection
(Hannan, Freeman 1977; Nelson, Winter 1982; McKelvey, Aldrich 1983). This selection is
determined by evolutionary process. Organizations are conceived as self reproducing, closed
systems that develop a variance in practice. The ‘best practices’ are the ones that enable
organizational survival. Organizations cannot escape this selection process. The process of
organizational change proceeds along the phases of variation - selection and retention,
whereby management is considered as the initiator of necessary variation and retention that
keeps the system alive. Contingency approaches are basically also deterministic considering
different aspects of environmental influences such as the nature of the environment or
technological factors on organizations, giving management a standard to adapt internal
structures and processes. In the adaptation perspective the management of change requires the
identification of environmental characteristics and the design of organizational architecture
and procedures according to the changing external influences (Burns, Stalker 1961; Lawrence,
Lorsch 1967; Thompson 1967; Woodward 1958). In order to adapt organizations to changing
contingencies management has to focus primarily on the technological complexity and
develop a best fit. Child (1972) argues that contingency approaches have a mechanistic flavor
and that there are strategic choices for management. The strategic choice view and strategic
contingency approaches open room for strategic choice – because there is no one best waybut several ways of managing change successfully. This implies that the environmental forces
are not seen as the sole determining factor of organizational structures and behavior, but also
as a dependent variable that can be influenced by organizational strategies under certain
circumstances. Management has to analyze contingencies and design strategies on the basis of
the organizations strength’s and weakness in order to develop strategic advantages (e.g.
Porter 1985). Out over these basic theoretical perspectives of adaptation, evolution, selection,
contingency and strategic choice view, organizational change is also conceptualized in
connection with models of organizational change and maturing. Here organizational change
is conceived in close analogy to biological concepts, as a development process along different
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
5
stages of maturing from the founding phase to its perish. Managements task is primarily to
support the transition from one phase to the next as these shifts are mostly connected with
severe problems or even symptoms of crisis in organizations (Greiner 1972; Quinn and
Cameron 1983; Lievegoed 1974; Mintzberg 1979). We also find numerous models of
intended organizational change that do not explicitly relate to organizational theory. Based
on early research on resistance to change – (Lewin 1947, 1958) and the development of
survey-feedback methods (Likert 1961; Mann 1961) concepts of planned organizational
development include a large number of organizational development practices and systemic
interventions methods such as Survey Feedback, T-Groups, Grid development, teamdevelopment and paradox intervention and others (e.g. French and Bell 1973; Schein 1969;
Blake, Mouton 1969, 1985; Selvini Palazolli et al. 1988). Finally a growing number of
organizational learning concepts deal with organizational change. Here organizations are
not victims of a natural selection process, nor solely dependent variables of determining
environmental forces but rather conceived of as active learning institutions, that can develop
according to goals and intentions of their founders and members, and also learn to move
beyond these original goals. Similarly as the basic differentiation between individual
stimulus-response learning (operant conditioning and classic conditioning) and intentional
cognitive learning, the organizational learning approach considers learning not merely as
adaption to contingencies, but as learning through insights, understanding and interpretation.
The different approaches to organizational learning are rooted in wide variety of theoretical
foundations and so far there is no theoretical platform that can serve as a common basis for
further development.
3. Perspectives on organizational learning in management literature
Not much has changed since Fiol and Lyles (1985) argued that a ‘...systematic assessment of
the strategic management literature suggests an interesting dilemma: Although there exists
widespread acceptance of the notion of organizational learning and its importance to strategic
performance, no theory or model of organizational learning is widely accepted. Major
research (...) along with more modest efforts provide the basis for initial attempts to define,
develop, and to differentiate organizational learning and its components. Each has approached
the subject from different perspectives, leading to more divergence’ (Fiol, Lyles 1985: 803).
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
6
Indeed the divergence of perspectives has increases and so far no analytical or conceptual
model serves as a framework for learning among scholars of organizational learning.
Since Cyert and March first spoke about ‘organizational learning’ and Argyris and Schön’s
‘Organizational Learning-Theory of Action perspective’ in 1978, the concept has been used in
a variety of different ways in different disciplinary traditions. The amount of literature during
the past two decade is overwhelming. Looking at the scope and the heterogeneity of the
contributions the necessity becomes obvious to describe the concept of organizational
learning under different perspectives. Which are the relevant perspectives on organizational
learning and which are the core assumptions that can be traced in the literature in order to
derive a conceptual framework for the management of organizational learning?
Most scholars confronted with the literature on organizational learning have major problems
in organizing, systematizing and grouping the different contributions. It is difficult to judge if
a new contribution should be valued as an increase in knowledge on organizational learning,
or if it just adds to the growing diversity in the joint process of constructing complex reality in
the mental models of organization researchers. Maybe the answer to this question reflects
different paradigms of research, one that relies on adding knowledge by analysis and
empirical questioning, hopefully eliminating false assumptions over time, while the other adds
interpretations and thereby continues interaction hoping to develop a joint construction of
meaning over time. Whatever the result may be, the current growth of literature goes along
with the feeling of a lack of clarity, and consensus (Barnett 1998) and even growing
confusion (Wiegand 1996; Wahren 1996; Tsang 1997; Edmondson and Moingeon 1998).
There are some exceptions where attempts of integrative theorizing are presented.
Shrivastava (1983) is the first to systematically differentiate four distinct and contrasting
perspectives on organizational learning: Referring to the early decision making approach of
Cyert and March (1963) he labels one line of thinking as ‘adaptive learning’ (Cangelosi and
Dill 1965; March and Olson 1976). With reference to Argyris and Schön (1978) a second
perspective on organizational learning is described as ‘assumption sharing ’. These concepts
are rooted in sociological theories of knowledge (e x. Berger and Luckmann 1966; Parsons
and Shils 1962). A third perspective is referred to as ‘development of knowledge base’. The
emphasis here is on the development of knowledge about action-outcome relationships
relevant to organizational activities, as Duncan and Weiss (1978) elaborate organizational
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
7
learning. The fourth perspective is labeled as ‘institutionalized experience effects’ and
covers the approaches to institutionalized experiences on learning curves (Abernathy and
Wayne 1974).
Wiegand (1996) refers to seven theoretical perspectives on organizational learning which are
based on the historical development of the contributions as well as their conceptual
distinctions. First the pioneer approach of James March is presented with different stages of
development in his works (Cyert and March 1963; March and Olson 1975; Levitt and March
1988). The second line of thinking is connected to Chris Argyris, who focuses primarily on
the individual as the acting agent of the organization. Also here a number of phases in his
works are distinguishable. Starting with the question of ‘Integrating the Individual and the
organization’ (1964), Argyris and Schön (1978) in a second phase follow the promotion of
organizational learning by interventions. Here the essential work on theories-in-action is
presented 1 . A third phase is associated with facilitating organizational learning by overcoming
organizational defenses (Argyris 1990) and promoting higher order learning and Model II
theory in use (Argyris and Schön 1996). After these two basic theoretical foundations by
March and Argyris a third perspective on organizational learning is described as knowledge
based approaches, incorporating amongst others the concepts of Duncan et al., Pautzke,
Huber and Walsh, Ungson, Pawlowsky, Nonaka (Duncan and Weiss 1979; Pautzke 1989;
Huber 1991; Walsh, Ungson 1991; Pawlowsky 1992, 1994; Nonaka 1994, 1987). Although
most approaches to organizational learning somehow relate to knowledge as the starting and
end point of learning the contributions clustered here focus on different types of knowledge
and organizational processes connected with knowledge creation and diffusion. A fourth
perspective is named as eclectic approaches, referring to both Peter Senge (1990) and Bo
Hedberg (1981) who incorporate different theoretical elements into their approaches. While
Senge’s approach originates in a research project initiated by the MIT and large UScorporations aiming at developing Systems Thinking as a way of fostering organizational
learning, Hedberg (1981) conceptualizes organizations as cognitive systems that are
developed by individual perceptions and interpretations. A fifth perspective is seen as
1
Organizational learning occurs when individuals within an organization experience a problematic situation and
inquire into it on the organization’s behalf. They experience a surprising mismatch between expected and actual
results of action and respond to that mismatch through a process of thought and further action that leads them to
modify their images of organization or their understanding of organizational phenomena and to restructure their
activities so as to bring outcomes and expectations into line, thereby changing organizational theory-in-use. In
order to become organizational, the learning that results from organizational inquiry must become embedded in
the images of organization held in it’s members’ minds and/or in the epistemological artifacts (the maps,
memories, and programs) embedded in the organizational environment” (Argyris and Schön 1996: 16)
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
8
integrative approaches to organizational learning. Common for these approaches is the
reference to a wide spectrum of literature on organizational learning aiming at a theoretical
integration. Here the works of Shrivastava 1983; Fiol and Lyles 1985; Bomke et al. 1993 and
Dodgson 1993 are subsumed. A sixth group of publications is seen in line with systemic
thinking and systems theory (Klimecki et al. 1991; Reinhardt 1993; Schreyögg and Noss
1995). Finally there are a number of approaches in the tradition of organizational
development (f. ex. Pedler et al. 1991 and Garratt 1990) that Wiegand (1996) labels as
individualistic-normative perspective.
Recently Edmondson and Moingeon (1998) have presented a framework to organize the
diverse ‘scholarly contributions into meaningful categories’ (Edmondson and Moingeon
1998: 6). The existing ideas about organizational learning are presented in a typology of
organizational learning research. A distinction is made between four approaches:
(1) Residues: organizations as residues of past learning - lessons of the past are embodied
in current routines as for e.g. in the approach of Cyert, March (1963) and Nelson Winter
(1982); (2) Communities: organizations as collections of individuals who can learn and
develop. This research is mainly descriptive (e. g. Brown and Duguid 1991; Stata, 1989;
Pedler et al. 1990); (3) Participation: organizational improvement gained through
intelligent activity of individuals - here organizational learning is viewed as an outgrowth of
policies that engage individuals in contributing to the organization (e.g. Hayes et al 1988) and
(4) Accountability: organizational improvement gained through developing individuals
mental models. Here effectiveness is depends upon properties of individual cognition (e.g.
Argyris and Schön 1974; Senge 1990, Brown 1991).
These distinctions of organizational learning approaches may be of help in understanding the
basic assumptions of organizational learning, but only insofar as they use the same analytical
dimensions in defining the theoretical clusters. Looking at the distinctions presented above,
with the exception of Shrivastavas typology, the perspectives are made up of different
analytical dimensions such as the chronological development of a theory (e.g. pioneer
approaches), or the author as the main anchor of a perspective. Furthermore we find different
content dimensions, such as integration or eclecticism as criteria of distinction. In order to
distinguish different theoretical perspectives on organizational learning it might prove useful
to apply a consitent analytical approach, namely by organizing the key contributions to
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
9
organizational learning according to theoretical traditions. A review of the literature to date
suggests that it is possible to distinguish between five clusters of theories:
•
the organizational decision-making and adaptation perspective,
•
the ‘System-Theory’ perspective,
•
the cognitive and knowledge perspective,
•
the ‘culture’ perspective,
•
the ‘Action-Learning’ perspective,
By examining each in turn some core assumptions for the management of organizational
learning can be distilled.
Obviously the different perspectives do not completely exclude each other, because most
approaches incorporate a number of different views and theoretical approaches. Not only have
authors such as James March and Chris Argyris changed perspectives on organizational
learning over time, and added new aspects, we also find that the lines between approaches
such as the adaptive learning approach or the cognitive and epistemological approaches are
blurred. Nevertheless, most approaches seems to be centered around clearly distinguishable
theoretical assumptions that make it possible to define genuine qualitative clusters.
3.1 The organizational decision-making and adaptation perspective
The early work of Cyert and March (1963) centers around an stimulus-response (S-R) based
behavioral approach to learning and is based on a contemporary conceptualization of decision
making processes in organizations. Looking at preceding publication of March and Simon
(1958) we can see that their understanding of the learning process and their postulates about
human organism are rooted in Tolman’s (1932) goal directed behaviorism. Although the
human organism is considered as a complex information-processing system, human memory
is seen to include ‘all sorts of partial and modified records of past experiences and programs
for responding to environmental stimuli’ (March and Simon 1958: 10). The internal states are
divided into evoked and unevoked parts. External stimuli are triggers to evoke certain parts of
the memory. ‘When one of these elements is evoked by a stimulus, it may also bring into the
evoked set a number of other elements with which it has become associated through the
learning process. Thus if a particular goal has been achieved on previous occasions by
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
10
execution of a particular course of action, then evocation of that goal will be likely to evoke
that course of action again’ (March and Simon 1958: 10). In their understanding of
organizational learning this mechanistic stimulus-response (S-R) conception of the learning
process is transferred to organizational learning, whereas the individual concept of memory is
exchanged by ‘standard operating procedures’ on the organizational level. In ‘A Behavioral
Theory of the Firm’ Richard Cyert and James March (1963) for the first time conceive
organizational learning as a concept located on the organizational level:
‘ Organizations learn: to assume that organizations go through the same processes of
learning as do individual human beings seems unnecessarily naive, but organizations exhibit
(as do other social institutions) adaptive behavior over time. Just as adaptations at the
individual level depend upon phenomena of the human physiology, organizational adaptation
uses individual members of the organization as instruments. However, we believe it is
possible to deal with adaptation at the aggregate level of the organization, in the same sense
and for the same reasons that it is possible to deal with the concept of organizational decision
making’ (Cyert and March 1963: 123).
In Cyert, March’s (1963) understanding, organizational learning is triggered by external
shocks. An external source of disturbance or shock to the system, which cannot be controlled
makes adaptation necessary. (1963, p.99). The organization has a number of decision
variables and decision rules internal to the system. Each combination of external shocks and
decision variables in the system changes the state of the system. Organizations learn by
memorizing disturbances and reaction combinations according to decision variables. Standard
operating procedures are referred to as the memory of the organization. By learning new
combinations of external disturbances and internal decision rules the organization increases its
adaptability to differing environmental states. Any decision rule that leads to a non preferred
state at one point is less likely to be used in the future. Just as the probability of a specific
individual behavior decreases with the expectation of negative outcomes in behavioral
learning theory. ‘...Organizations exhibit (...) adaptive behavior over time’. (Cyert , March
1963: 123). ‘We argue...that a business organization is an adaptive institution. In short, the
firm learns from its experience’ (1963: 100). The concept is based on a perception of adaptive
learning which can result in (Cyert and March 1963: 126) ‘uncertainty avoidance’,
‘problemistic search’ (search that is motivated by a problem and is directed towards finding a
solution to that problem) and ‘organizational learning’ ( adaptation of goals, adaptation in
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
11
attention rules and adaptation in search rules). Outcome of organizational learning is a
adaptation or change of organizational rules and standard operating procedures. We can see
that organizational learning is not dependent on an increase of knowledge of it’s members,
rather learning is seen as organizational memorizing of S-R combinations. Learning then is
seen as reactive adaptation in line with S-R learning principles, there is no cognitive or
knowledge related learning.
Unlike Cyert, March (1963) we find that in March and Olsons (1976) concept of
organizational learning the first reference is to ‘organizational intelligence’ (p. 55), and to
cognitive processes. Here organizational learning is clearly conceptualized as experiential
learning, based on ‘cognition’s and preferences’, ‘models of the world’ , ideas, beliefs and
attitudes that members of the organization hold (March and Olson 1976: 338). Individual
capabilities of correctly interpreting environmental ambiguity, which rely on cognitive
processes and their limitations are of central importance to organizational learning in March
and Olson’s model. In comparison to the mechanistic S-R learning model from Cyert and
March (1963), March and Olson (1976) extend organizational learning to incorporate socialpsychological factors and cognitive structures as important elements of organizational
learning. The incomplete learning cycle not only takes into account individual psychological
‘pre-existing structure of related values and cognition’s’ (1976: 60) but also socialpsychological aspects such as role constraints.
Levitt and March (1988) develop the concept of organizational learning further. In their
approach ‘Organizations are seen as learning by encoding inferences from history into
routines that guide behavior. The generic term ‘routines’ includes the forms, rules,
procedures, conventions, strategies, and technology around which organizations are
constructed and through which they operate.’ Levitt and March explicitly add: ‘It also
includes the structure of beliefs, frameworks, paradigms, codes, cultures, and knowledge that
buttress, elaborate, and contradict the formal routines’ (Levitt and March 1988: 320). These
routines are considered independent of the individual actors and they are capable of surviving
considerable turnover in organizational actors. These Routines are more than standard
operating procedures (Cyert and March 1963), they open up the way to conceptualizing
collective knowledge bases of organizations that are the result of learning from direct
experience, learning from interpretations such as stories, paradigms, frames of reference,
culture and learning from the experience of others.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
12
It becomes clear that March’s understanding of organizational learning has changed
considerably from the early mechanistic concept of standard operating procedures to the
learning cycle that includes subjective interpretations of reality and gives the individual in
organizations an important function in shaping the organizational learning process and finally
to Levitt and March’s concept of routines which goes one step further by including a broad
range of knowledge bases in organizations that are seen as a result of different individual
learning histories.
3.2 The ‘System-Theory’ perspective 2
By defining organizations as systems ‘of consciously coordinated activities or forces of two
or more persons’ Barnard (1956: 75) was presumably the first to base management thinking in
a systems perspective. The systems approach has a long tradition and has ramified
considerably. Bertalanffy (1951) developed the principles of a general system theory as a
means of linking different disciplines. This is the theoretical basis for a number of
approaches that conceptualize organizations as open systems that are confronted with
environmental pressure which they somehow have to adapt to. With respect to organizational
learning at least three distinctive approaches have developed.
First the traditional approaches to a system based management perspective building on a
systems view and the system-environment relations can be distinguished. Kast and
Rosenzweig (1970) amongst others base their organization and management approach on a
systems view. Here the systems perspective is used as an analogy and not in a strict
theoretical way. With the development of an early system perspective, organizational
environments were perceived as exerting pressure on organizations, that management had to
deal with. For example Ashby’s 1956 ‘law of requisite variety’ implies that ‘only variety can
destroy variety’ (Ashby 1961, first1956: 207). Organizations that have to cope with
2
Systems theoretical- and epistemological approaches can be distinguished by the notion of 1st- vs. 2nd-order
cybernetics: 1st-order cybernetics is based on the assumption, that systems do exist as an ontological reality and therefore can be identified and improved by tools on the basis of prescriptions. Contrary to this assumption
2nd order cybernetics or autopoietic systems theory refers to the idea, that systems are mental constructions
(Von Foerster, 1985; see also Maturana and Varela 1987; Luhmann 1984): Hence, changing systems first must
take into account the role of the observer explicitly, which for example means, that different stakeholders (must)
have different goals due to their observer positions and interpretation modes.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
13
environmental complexity have to generate structures that can deal with complexity. Thus a
complex environment needs a complex ‘inside’ of organizational structures. This view of
perceiving organizations as open systems in the context of a general-systems view was further
developed e.g. by Katz and Kahn 1978: ‘The organization lives only by being open to inputs,
but selectively; its continuing existence requires both the property of openness and selectivity’
(Katz and Kahn 1978: 31; Emery, Trist 1965; Emery 1969).
Secondly we can identify concepts which are based on the assumptions of self-organization
processes3 . These concepts take into account self- referentiality as basic processes in
organizations to deal with (e.g. Beer 1972, 1979; v. Foerster 1985; Probst 1987; Willke 1987;
1998; Reinhardt 1993; Ulrich 1984; Malik 1987, 1992; Steinmann and Schreyögg 1993).
Organizational learning is conceived as an increase in problem solving potentials of social
systems derived by institutional learning (Klimecki et al. 1991). According to the authors that
represent this perspective, institutions have to build organizational slack in order for selfreferential processes to take place and thereby develop the organization to a higher level.
Here management is advised to allow autonomous developments in systems and to design
structural preconditions in organizations that promote such self-referential processes.
Finally the System Dynamics Approach, which originates from population analysis and was
developed amongst others by Forrester (1969, 1980, 1987) is to be mentioned. The concept
plays an important role both in Peter Senge’s (1990) approach to organizational learning as
well as in the St. Gallen's school’s view on organizational development (Vester 1991; Gomez
1981; Ulrich and Probst 1984, 1990; Probst, Eberl, and Klimecki 1991; Senge 1990, Senge et
al. 1994; Morecroft 1988; Morecroft et al. 1994). The basic assumption here is that once we
have reduced complexity of a network system by analyzing the features of all relevant factors
and their dynamic relations over time, this knowledge can be used to understand the
functioning of complex systems networks and to intervene accordingly. All outputs of
systems are seen as input to other systems, therefore learning means understanding the
complex relations of social systems and their dynamics. In this approach looking at one
system-level, for example the organization, also implies defining the elements of this system
on a lower level - the groups or individuals - and describing the larger system into which the
3
In order to avoid misunderstandings we have to distinguish between self-organizational and autopoeitic or
epistemological approaches: Self-organization is an element of autopoiesis but not vice versa: Autopoiesis
implies self-creation and self-maintaining on the basis of self-organizing processes; the notion „self
organization“ lacks the self-maintaining aspect (e.g. Hejl, 1984).
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
14
system of interest is integrated into. This methodological procedure is based on both an
analytical and on a synthetic outlook: We are to look at the elements of a system (analysis)
and we can aggregate to the next system-level by synthesis and describe the learning relations
on this next level4. Basically the system-dynamics perspective is derived from a cybernetic
concept of single loop learning, as the model builds on feed-back loops and a perspective of
stabilizing systemic structures by balancing loops. Possibly Senge’s (1990) propositions
about systems archetypes (1990, p. 378) can be interpreted as Bateson’s (1992) Type II or
Type III learning because they are based on assumptions that are a result of reflection about
‘higher-order-rules’. System thinking is seen as the essential fifth discipline 5 for
organizational learning by Peter Senge (1990: 57) and ‘Organizational learning processes are
most effective when they help managers develop a more systemic and dynamic perspective’
(Senge and Sterman 1992, p.354).
3.3 The cognitive and knowledge perspective
There is only a gradual transition between Levitt and March’s (1988) ‘routines’ and cognitive
conceptions of organizational learning. Basically the cognitive perspective is centered around
the assumption ‘...that all deliberate action had a cognitive basis, that it reflected norms,
strategies and assumptions or models of the world which had claims to general
validity...Human action and human learning could be placed in the larger context of
knowing.’ (Argyris and Schön, 1978: 10). Essential to cognitive notion is the conscious
character of learning. Members of organizations are not merely a storage bin of past rational
experiences but interpreters of reality (‘enactment’) according to the specifities of their
cognitive system. The cognitive and knowledge perspective of organizational learning also
includes a variety of clusters that each emphasizes different aspects.
First we can distinguish two cognitive based approaches that have received a considerable
amount of interest recently: (1) structural approaches also labeled as ‘Representationism’
(von Krogh et al. 1996) which focus on information processing abilities depending on
structural characteristics of the cognitive system (Bartlett 1932; Schroder et al. 1969; Axelrod
4
The idea that a lower system-level also constitutes an element of a higher system-level provides insight into the
necessity of the differentiation between 1st- and 2nd order cybernetics, since the „element-relation“ only makes
sense within an ontological interpretation of systems (1st order cybernetics).
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
15
1976; Scholl et al. 1993; Dörner 1976, 1989; Streufert and Streufert 1978; Streufert and
Sweezey 1986; Huber 1991; Rumelhart 1984) and (2) corporate epistemology (von Krogh,
Roos, Slocum 1996, p.157) which considers the interpretation process and the cognitive
construction of reality as the central issue of importance for learning (Daft, Weick 1984;
Sims, Goia 1986; Weick and Bougon 1986; Reinhardt, 1993; van Krogh et al. 1996, Smircich
1983; Smircich et al. 1985). Let us look at these two approaches in more detail.
The assumption of structural concepts, that both learning and decision making depend on the
structure of the knowledge system is certainly not new to psychological thought. Much of
cognitive psychological research has shown that the capacity of human information
processing depends on the characteristics of individual cognitive structures (the individual
knowledge system) or stages of moral development. Recent research in the dynamics of
organizational social cognition also suggests the applicability of the cognitive construct idea
on the group and on the organizational level ( e.g. Streufert and Swezey 1986).
‘Organizational mind’ and ‘collective cause’ maps are two approaches towards organizational
knowledge systems (see Fig. 1). Organizational learning in this perspective can be considered
as a modification in the organizational knowledge system, that enables organizations to
improve their understanding and evaluation of the internal and external environments. Or as
Fiol and Lyles argue: ‘Learning enables organizations to build an organizational
understanding and interpretation of their environment....it results in associations, cognitive
systems, and memories that are developed and shared by members of the organization’ (Fiol,
Lyles 1985: 804). Thus knowledge systems are both antecedents and results of organizational
learning processes. If this is the case, characteristics of the organizational knowledge systems
can be considered as determinants of the organizational learning process on the one side, and
the results of learning processes can be observed looking at the characteristics of knowledge
systems on the other side. In the literature on organizational learning we can identify a
number of concepts of organizational knowledge systems (see Fig. 1).
5
The other four disciplines according to Senge (1990) are: (1) Personal Mastery (2) Managing Mental Models
(3) Developing Shared Visions and (4) Team Learning
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
16
Author
Concept
Boulding (1956)
Image
Wilensky (1967)
Organizational Intelligence
Weick, Bougon (1977)
Collective "Cause-maps"
Argyris, Schön (1978)
Organizational Theories-in-Action
Tushman, Nadler (1978)
Information Processing System
Duncan, Weiss (1979)
Knowledge about the Relationship between Specific Actions
and Outcomes
Starbuck (1982)
Logically Integrated Clusters of Belief
Shrivastava, Schneider (1984)
Organizational Frames of Reference
Hall (1984)
Organization’s Cause Map
Daft, Weick (1984)
Organizational Interpretation Systems
Salancik, Porac (1986)
Distilled Ideologies
Sims, Goia (1986)
Organizational Schemata
Sandelands, Stablein (1987)
Organization Mind
Lundberg (1989)
Operational Cause-Map
Pautzke (1989)
Organizational Knowledge Base
Senge (1990)
Shared Mental Models
Klimecki et al. (1991)
Joint Construction of Reality
Baitsch (1993)
Local Theory
Nonaka (1995)
Organizational knowledge-base-layer
Lyles et al. (1996)
Organizational Knowledge Structures and
Shared Belief Structures
Fig. 1. Concepts of organizational knowledge-systems
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
17
In the research tradition of the structural approaches there is a considerable amount of work
on human information processing and complexity theory to build on. This line of research is
associated with Bierie (1968), Zajonc (1965), Scott (1969) Schroder, Hunt's and Driver’s
(1976) work and has been developed considerably by Siegfried and Susan Streuferts
complexity theory in 1978 (Streufert and Streufert 1978). Following Lewins, Heiders and
Scotts thinking, very basically the assumptions of complexity theory are, that cognitive
structures can be analyzed according to content and structure. Streufert and others have
concentrated only on the structural aspects, which means that complexity is concerned with
how people think not what they think. Structure of individual knowledge-systems are defined
along the dimensions of differentiation (dimensionality in the cognitive semantic space) and
integration (the flexible relationships among various dimensions with regard to specific
stimulation). Practically it can be shown that there is significant impact of individual
differences in cognitive styles of managers (which relate to the structure of their knowledge
system) on executive performance (Streufert et al. 1990) . This research seems to offer
interesting ways of accessing individual knowledge systems because they are measurable and
because they have prognostic validity for business success. Moreover recent research has
effectively utilized the simulation procedures (SMS: Strategic Management Simulation) with
decision making processes in groups (Streufert, Pogash, Piasecki, and Post 1990). The
concept may be used to assess teams of decision makers that must, for example cope with
complex uncertain and fluid task environments. At least partially this theoretical perspective
gives access to the quality of a knowledge system on the group level and allows to evaluate
efficient learning in teams. Organizational learning here implies the distinction of structural
characteristics of collective knowledge systems—in other words if groups learn to evaluate
and discuss in a more differentiated and integrated way and if they have a number of ways of
interpreting and reflecting on topics, or observe processes from different angles. At the same
time a more differentiated and integrated collective knowledge system is a requisite for
differentiated perception and effective learning of a team.
In regard to corporate epistemology the emphasis is placed on the question how organizations
develop knowledge. Essentially these approaches do not define knowledge as a ‘objective’
mental reflection of reality, but as a coexisting and conflicting interpretation of reality that is
based on the history of each participating member of a joint knowledge system. Weick (1969)
has coined the phrase of the ‘enacted environment’ meaning that... ‘the human creates the
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
18
environment to which the system then adapts. The human actor does not react to an
environment , he enacts it (Weick 1969: 64). Subjective construction of meaning is
developed on the basis of symbols and language (von Krogh, Roos, and Slocum 1996: 157).
Organizational reality thus is constructed by interaction between members of the organization
developing a joint interpretation. Von Krogh, Roos et al. 1996, similarly as Reinhardt 1993
build a bridge between the cognitive rooted approach and autopoiesis theory on the basis of
Maturana and Varela (1987). Knowledge here is a result of the self productive (autopoetic)
process and embodied in the individual (p. 163f.) . This ‘private’ knowledge can be conveyed
to organizational knowledge through interactions: ‘Knowledge of the organization is shared
knowledge among organizational members’ (von Krogh, Roos, and Slocum 1996: 166; see
also Weick 1969: ‘double interact’). Therefore the epistemological perspective suggests
cooperative experimentation and interactive methods, especially language games as means of
promoting knowledge development and thus organizational learning (Krogh, Roos, Yip 1996;
Vicari et al. 1996).
The second major theoretical cluster in the cognitive and knowledge perspective are
approaches to organizational learning that center around (1) core competencies and (2)
knowledge creation and development processes. Certainly the above mentioned aspects
play a role here also but the main focus is on other aspects. The basic assumption of the core
competence approach is that an organization’s competitive advantage depends on the
knowledge and skills it possesses in a distinct area. Core capabilities in organizations are seen
as the "wellspring" of organizational learning processes (Leonard-Barton 1995). This line of
thinking is influenced by the traditional approach on the diffusion of innovations (Rogers
1983), as the central question asked here is concerned with the identification, development
and diffusion of core competencies in organizations (e.g. Leonard-Barton 1995; Jelinek 1979;
Jelinek et al. 1990; Lullies et. al. 1993 ; Wikström et al. 1992; Grundy 1994; Hamel, Prahalad
1995; Prahalad 1996 ). The main emphasis is placed on discovering both the core rigidities
and the core capabilities of organizations which are considered as ‘interlocked systems of
knowledge bases and flows.’ (Leonard-Barton 1995: XIV). In order to promote organizational
learning different activities such as integrated problem solving across different cognitive and
functional barriers, implementation of new methodologies, experimentation and importing
know-how from outside are suggested (Leonard-Barton, 1995: XV).
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
19
The second line of thinking, the knowledge development and creation approaches, are closely
related to epistemological concepts of organizational learning and build on Polanyi's
understanding of implicit and explicit knowledge in organizations (Polanyi 1966). Explicit
knowledge is understood as insights that can be articulated and transferred by language. Tacit
knowledge in contrast is based on individual experiences and cannot be transferred and
articulated by language. Knowledge development is described as an interactive process
between these two types of knowledge on different levels of the organization. Without going
into details (see the ‘SECI-Model’ in the chapter by Nonaka, Byosiere in this volume ("The
theory of organizational knowledge creation") we can state here, that the crucial question of
knowledge creation lies in mobilizing the tacit knowledge in organizations and transferring it
to the group and organizational level in order for collective system-levels to learn. This means
that individual knowledge and experiences which often are implicit in nature have to be
articulated and experienced by other members of the organization. On the basis of a phase
model a number of tools and methods are derived that enable the necessary transfer of
knowledge and promote knowledge creation. This perspective also discusses and analyses
intercultural differences in typical knowledge management styles and emphasize the
distinction between western management styles that rely mainly on explicit knowledge, while
the Japanese approach to knowledge is much more aware of tacit knowledge in organizations
(Pautzke 1989; Nonaka 1988; 1991; Nonaka, Takeuchi 1995, Nonaka, Konno 1998).
3.4 The ‘culture’ perspective
A number of approaches have focused on the culture concept and view organizational
learning, as for example Argyris (1990), as a change of defensive routines in organizations
and or the development of an organizational learning culture (f.ex. Mitroff and Kilmann 1976;
Dierkes 1988, 1992; Schein 1984, 1991; Sackmann 1991; Hawkins 1991; Frost et al. 1991;
Klimecki et al. 1991; Argyris 1990; Cook and Yanow 1993;) "At the simplest conceptual
level... we can say that culture is the shared common learning output" (Schein 1991: 247).
Cook, Yanow (1993) describe the distinctive view of the culture approach to organizational
learning: ‘Our intention...is to outline a "cultural perspective" on organizational learning (...)
We see this perspective as a complement to, not a substitute for the cognitive perspective’
(Cook et al. 1993: 4), and they argue, that the cognitive perspective focuses only on the
individual level while the cultural perspective can capture the learning on a collective learning
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
20
level. Therefore organizational learning is seen as a process "...when a group acquires the
know-how which enables it to carry out its collective activities.." (1993: 13). The definition
for culture as the ‘...set of values, beliefs, and feelings, together with the artifacts of their
expression and transmission (such as myths, symbols metaphors, rituals) that are created,
inherited, shared, and transmitted within one group of people and that, in part distinguish that
group from others’ (Cook et al 1993: 15), makes clear that this perspective is closely linked to
the epistemological approaches. Culture and joint construction of reality are basically the
common core. Several contributions have build on the culture dimension and help to bridge
the gap between individual concepts and collective concepts of learning. This can be shown
for example by Sackmann’s (1991) concept of „cultural knowledge in organizations‘ which is
based on the assumption „that culture can be conceptualized as the collective construction of
social reality‘ (p. 33). Sackmann distinguishes between four classes of cultural knowledge,
which additionally are divided up into several categories. The classes can be described as
follows (Sackmann, 1991: 34–39): (1) Dictionary knowledge describes organizational reality
that is considered to be relevant in a given cultural setting by its members, for example the
strategy of a firm. The descriptive dictionary knowledge can be elicited by ‘what?’- questions.
(2) Directory knowledge represents commonly held theories of actions, which contain causalanalytical attributions. The directory knowledge can be elicited by ‘how?’-questions. (3)
Recipe knowledge consists of normative prescriptions or causal-normative attributions.
Recipe knowledge can be elicited by ‘what should be?’- questions. (4) Axiomatic knowledge
consists of causes, assumptions, and beliefs. Axiomatic knowledge can be elicited by ‘why
are things done the way they are?’- questions. Based on this approach it is possible to link
cultural changes to the process of organizational learning: Dictionary knowledge is strongly
related to functional domains, which implies that changing dictionary knowledge occurs for
example by changing incentive and reward systems. Changing directory knowledge can be
interpreted as an organization wide learning process, which for example is driven by the
change of organizational control mechanisms. A change in recipe knowledge can be triggered
by the degree of autonomy and selection procedures, while changing axiomatic knowledge is
strongly related to the learning of top management teams, e.g. by sharing beliefs within this
group.
Argyris (1990) clarifies in an impressive way in his approach that organizational defense
mechanisms towards learning processes are grounded in a cultural and emotional level of the
organization. He distinguishes two contrasting types of cultures in organizations: : ‘Model I
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
21
Theory-in-Use’ and ‘Model II Theory-in-Use’. ‘Model I Theory-in-use instructs individuals to
seek to be in unilateral control, to win, and not to upset people’ (1990 13)...Model I theory-inuse is designed to produce defensive consequences and therefore requires defensive
reasoning’ (1990: 23). ‘Model II is the new theory-in-use. The governing values of Model II
Theory-in-use are valid information, informed choice, and responsibility to monitor how well
the choice is implemented’ (1990: 104). The predominant values in the context of the ‘Model
I’ (‘control’, ‘to win and not to loose’, ‘to avoid negative feelings’), lead to defensive routines
in organizations: ‘For example, whenever human beings are faced with any issue that
contains significant embarrassment or threat, they act in ways that bypass, as best they can,
the embarrassment or threat. In order for the bypass to work, it must be covered up. The basic
strategy involves bypass and cover-up.’ (Argyris, 1990: 25). Organizational learning as
cultural change thus also implies affective and emotional aspects of common culture.
Therefore knowledge systems in organizations cannot be seen as joint constructions of reality
only, but also as general constructions of meaning with affective connotations. If one regards
this cultural perspective as the affective component of collective knowledge systems, a broad
variety of approaches which are closely linked to the cognitive perspective outlined above
opens up under the generic term of ‘Management of meaning’ (cf. Pondy et al. 1983 Gray
1985; Gioia, 1986; Smircich 1983; Smircich et al. 1985 Schein 1991)
3.5 The ’Action-Learning’ perspective
Essential to action-learning is the idea that learning occurs through acting. The basic idea is
that a deeper understanding of contents are developed by a reflection process that follows
action. Pure cognitive learning may be memorized but does not allow for understanding.
Necessary for action relevant learning is the reflection on ones own experiences. The action
learning approach is quite heterogeneous with theoretically and conceptual based models such
as Kolbs learning circle on the one hand and the practical action-behavior orientation that can
be found in Revans (1980) and Pedlers et al. (1991) approach to organizational learning
practices. Originally Revans has applied action learning to different learning situations since
the 1950s (Revans 1980). These approaches conceptualize behavioral oriented intervention as
the starting point for learning processes in a theoretical framework of experiential learning
(Dewey 1910, Kolb 1976, 1984; Argyris, Schön; 1978; Revans 1982; Forslin, Thulestedt
1993; Inglis 1994; Pedler 1997).
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
22
According to Revans (1982) learning occurs from experience—the basic idea is that we have
an experience and then we think and reflect on this experience by relating it to former
experiences. ‘We continue to think about the experience, but now we are making
generalizations and fitting the results into our personal view of reality. And finally we test our
conclusions by using a modified approach the next time a similar set of circumstances arises.’
(Inglis, 1994: 14). Similarly to other conceptions of organizational learning the necessity of
organizational adaptation to changing environments is considered as the trigger to learning.
Following Revans (1982) the learning process can be expresses as L = P + Q (where L is
learning and P stands for programmed knowledge and Q for the ability to pose questions;
Inglis 1994: 8). Inglis extends the formula to L=P+Q+I, where I is implementation. ‘Action
learning requires action to be taken, not merely recommended’ (Inglis 1994: 9).
Practically action learning with its roots in the English socio-technical tradition is a popular
approach in leadership and management development programs. Its main advantage being a
learning based on experience and the simultaneous processes of learning and congruent
change in the client system. It also offers a flexible and meaningful learning situation for the
individual and provides support in problem solving. Action learning is also viable, however,
for collective , experiential learning. In terms of higher order learning (double loop learning),
an action learning set - a group of participants who work on forming shared knowledge—is a
powerful instrument. Experiences are shared, analysis is enhanced and gradually new and
understood concepts develop, which meet the needs of the group. The learning and problem
solving process is supported by the introduction of relevant external knowledge and typically
the process is managed by a facilitator. Learning sets can consist of members from the same
organization or from separate cooperating organizations, for example in a network. The
participation in a learning set is an experience that highlights the learning aspects of problem
solving and the set develops an attitude towards learning that could be seen as a case of
deutero-learning - that is, the set learns to learn6 . Recently Pedler (1997) suggests to develop
a constructionist interpretation of action learning which ...‘frees us from the limitations of
individual action and learning’(Pedler 1997: 261). In this view action learning helps to
develop ‘a shared process of meaning-making, helping to create frameworks of understanding
within which to act’ (Pedler 1997: 261). This conceptual extension allows the integration of
an epistemological perspective and we can see that organizational meaning and acting of
organizational members are closely connected on the organizational level.
6
Thanks to Jan Forslin for his discussion and contribution on this perspective
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
23
4. Management of organizational learning: a conceptual framework
and practical suggestions
What then are the implications of these perspectives for the management of organizational
learning? The assessment of the literature on organizational learning has made clear that
there are distinct perspectives on organizational learning that differ in respect to certain basic
assumptions for example the rationality assumption or the nature of the organization and its
environment as being either objective reality or subjective construction of reality, or in their
emphasis on certain aspects of organizational learning such as the cognitive, the culture or the
action perspective. Besides these differences that result out of distinctive theoretical traditions
we can also observe similarities in these approaches, that reappear, sometimes with other
labels but essentially refer to similar aspects. All approaches on organizational learning
somehow refer to the transfer problem of learning from the individual to a group or to a
organizational level. Most approaches also distinguish learning levels such as simple adaptive
learning and higher order reflective learning. We can also observe that the differences
between cognitive, cultural and action approaches diminish as authors from all theoretical
‘sides’ seem to suggest an integration of cognitive, cultural and action related aspects into
their approaches of organizational learning. In other words it is possible to see outlines of a
picture that visualizes basic building stones of an integrative model of organizational learning.
This could not only help to define hypothesis that are open to empirical research and thus
refine our understanding on organizational learning but also help the practitioner to identify
relevant organizational factors that influence learning. Let us look more closely at these
integrative dimensions. Our review suggests four different dimensions of organizational
learning:
•
different system-levels of learning (from individual to network)
•
different learning modes, such as cognitive-, cultural- and action learning
•
different learning types (single-loop, double-loop, deutero-learning) and
•
different phases of a collective learning process.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
24
4.1 System levels
As has often been pointed out, organizational learning has to be distinguished from individual
learning. Therefore most concepts define learning levels above the individual level in order to
conceptualize organizational learning. Of special interest here is the group or the team level as
this level offers a gateway to organizational learning. Especially system-perspectives and
knowledge creation approaches have pointed to the vital function of groups as the core level
of organizational learning e.g. Senge (1990): ‘Team building is vital because teams, not
individuals are the fundamental learning unit in modern organizations. This is were 'the
rubber meets the road', unless teams can learn, the organization cannot learn’ (Senge 1990:
10). As Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) point out the focus on groups is traditionally embedded
in the Japanese culture, while western management usually deals with individuals. In
Japan...‘the interaction of tacit and explicit knowledge tends to take place at the group level’
(1995: 198). Groups are not only the link between the individual and the organization but also
the crucial intervening social system in which ‘sharing’ (Jelinek and Litterer 1994), learning
and organizational behavior takes place, where the individuals view of the world is shared,
mediated and influenced. Looking at the early research on group dynamics (f.ex. Bion 1968;
Cangelosi, Dill 1965; Cartwright, Zander 1968; Bales 1955; Weick 1969, Lewin 1947; Likert
1976; Katzenbach, Smith 1993)
much knowledge can be revitalized for questions of
organizational learning. Wiegand (1996) has undertaken the task to elaborate how research on
groups can be transferred to problems of organizational learning, arguing that groups play a
central role in the emotional support of individual learning and that phases of group
development can be reinterpreted as learning phases opening new chances for interventions
and promoting of learning (see also ‘Learning Networks’ in the Tools chapter).
On the next level intraorganizational learning is often conceptualized. Mostly the question
arises how organizations as an entity can learn. Rarely are there any attempts in precisely
defining what collective learning means on this level. Beyond the individual, the group and
the intraorganizational level, much focus has been on the network or interorganizational level
of learning lately. How can organizations learn in networks and how can external knowledge
systems be used to support learning. Basically any conceptual framework for organizational
learning theory should therefore incorporate at least four different analytical system-levels:
the individual level of learning,
the group or interpersonal level, the organizational or
intraorganizational level and the network or interorganizational level of learning.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
25
4.2 Learning modes
As we have noted most approaches to organizational learning are based on one or more of the
following three distinct perspectives: A cognitive perspective on organizational learning,
which is based on the early works of decision-making processes in organizations but has
developed far beyond the concepts of bounded rationality in terms of its ability to integrate
the value and belief perspective. Here cognitive systems are the basic concepts applied on the
individual and collective level. A cultural perspective, which has its roots in an interpretative
approach to human behavior and builds on the notion, that members of organizations create a
set of intersubjective meanings (construction of reality), that can be assessed by artifacts such
as symbols, metaphors, ceremonies myths etc. and which are tied together by values and
beliefs and emotions. A action perspective, which derives its assumptions from several
traditions. It emphasizes the importance of educational concepts and experiential learning in
the tradition of Kolb (1984) and Revans (1980).
These three perspectives represent three existential stances that man/women can take with
respect to the human condition: Knowing, feeling, and acting. "Throughout the classical
tradition, from Plato and Aristoteles on, theorists repeatedly proposed the same three
components of attitude under their latinized names of cognitive, affective and conative"
(McGuire, 1968, p. 155). Rather than excluding one of these views, or harmonizing the
differences between these perspectives on organizational learning, we assume that all three
components—knowledge, culture and action—have to be considered complementary if
organizational learning is to be promoted. Management of learning makes it necessary to
understand learning , not only as a matter of cognitive learning, but also of values, emotions
and behavior. Social psychological research on attitude change makes the assumption likely,
that the relation of these three components are an important aspect of attitude change. People
in organizations not only have to understand or create new realities, they have to feel that it is
right to adopt new hypothesis or views and that they are able to act accordingly. Neither the
‘sharing’ of tacit knowledge in groups, nor the ‘suspending’ of assumptions 7 that is necessary
for true dialogue has a chance if people are afraid to loose in such a process. Management of
7
"To 'suspend' one's assumptions means to hold them, 'as it were, 'hanging in front of you', constantly accessible
to questioning and observation....This cannot be done if we are defending our opinions. Nor can it be done, if we
are unaware of our assumptions" (Senge 1990: 243).
26
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
learning modes thus makes it necessary to establish, create and fertilize a culture of mutual
trust (f.ex. Zand 1977; Luhmann 1989; Bleicher 1995; Seifert et al. 1998; Cohen 1998: 36).
4.3 Learning types
The third distinction frequently made in the literature is based on Bateson’s (1972, 1992)
three learning levels, Learning I (‘proto-learning’, 1992: 371), Learning II (‘deuterolearning’, p. 219 and p. 378), Learning III (‘Changes in the deutero process of learning’;
1992: 389) and Argyris’ and Schön (1978) distinction between single-loop, double-loop and
deutero-learning. Other authors have developed similar learning typologies which basically
rest on the assumption that there are differences between learning as a conditioned response in
line with behavioristic learning theory on one side and learning as a result of reflection,
insight and maturation on the other hand. The overview in the following Fig.2 gives
examples of different learning types in the literature, where the labels and contents do not
necessarely correspond between the authors.
Authors
Learning types
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Bateson (1972)
Learning 0 and Learning I
Learning II
Learning III
Argyris, Schön
(1978)
Single-loop learning
Double-loop learning
Deutero-learning
Starbuck et al.
(1977)
first-order learning
second-order learning
Hedberg (1981)
Adjustment learning
Turnover learning
Turnaround learning
Shrivastava (1983)
Adaptive learning
Assumption sharing
Development of
knowledge base
Fiol, Lyles (1985)
Lower-level learning
higher-level learning
Morgan (1986)
Self-organization
Lundberg (1989)
Learning as organizational
change
Holographic learning
Learning as organizational
development
Learning as
organizational
transformation
27
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
Senge (1990)
Adaptive learning
Garratt (1990)
Operational learning cycle
Generative learning
The policy learning cycle
The integrated learning
cycle
Fig. 2: Examples for different learning types
The common distinction of organizational learning into three prototypes of learning can be
clarified as ‘Type I’ referring to the correction of deviations („idiosyncratic adaptation‘;
Pawlowsky 1994). Here learning refers to the detection of performance gaps and their
correction in line with the operating norms or standards that have been defined. ‘Type II’
implies an adjustment to the environment. This learning prototype is based on the assumption
that organizations have theories in use, interpretations-systems and frames of reference that
guide and determine organizational behavior. If the environmental feed-back that the
organization receives challenges the organization’s assumptions, and if these assumptions are
differentiated, redefined or altered completely in order to fit the environmental demand, than
one can say that learning of Type II has occurred. ‘Type III’ is referred to as problem-solving
learning (‘learning to learn’). This kind of learning requires collective reflection of governing
rules and assumptions. Garrat (1990) describes the necessary state as "helicopter view" and
Senge (1990) speaks of ‘metanoia’. Essential is the fact that learning Type III is a
construction of higher-order-rules based on experiences and insight. According to Bateson
(1972, 1992) Learning III involves attainment of knowledge about the development and the
meaning of habits (Learning II) and is only seldomly possible for individuals as it occurs
only in religous and spiritual experiences or psychotherapy .
With respect to the management of ‘learning-types’ managers should have in mind that
learning types differ and that different learning types are appropriate for different
circumstances. Learning my well only make simple adjustment necessary to defined norms
and standard operating procedures, but it may also require a profound reflection process if the
possible consequences for the organization or the respective entity can be severe.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
28
4.4 Learning Process
Finally most descriptions of organizational learning distinguish between different phases of
the organizational learning process. Cyert, March (1963) differentiate ‘information taken into
the firm’ , ‘the distribution of information inside the organization ‘, the condensing of input
information’ and the output of information ‘..through orders to suppliers, deliveries to
consumers, advertising, petitions for patents and in many other ways’ (1963: 107). Hedberg
(1981) essentially differs between four phases of the learning process: Environmental stimuli,
Selection and interpretation of stimuli and reaction. Also four phases make up the learning
circle in Kolbs model (1976, 1984: 30): ‘concrete experience’, ‘reflective observation’,
‘abstract conceptualization’ and ‘active experimentation’. Huber (1991) sees the
organizational learning process made up of knowledge acquisition, distribution, interpretation
and memorizing. Similar process phases are also described by Lundberg 1989, Nonaka 1992
and others.
Basically the process phases of learning are described along the following, not necessarily
sequential learning steps: (1) The identification of information that seems relevant to learning
and /or the creation (generation) of new knowledge by combination (f.ex. Koestler's
‘bisociation’ 1964 or Nonaka's "socialization" 1994 ; Lundberg's ‘puzzles’ 1989).
(2) Some mode of exchange and diffusion of knowledge either from the individual to the
collective level or on the collective level (f.ex. Duncan's et al. "exchange" 1979;
‘externalization’ 1994; Huber's ‘distribution’ 1991). (3) Knowledge then has to be integrated
into existing knowledge systems on a collective and or individual level or into procedural
rules of the organization whereby either integration or modification of the adopting system
8
can take place (Bouldings ‘addition’ 1956). (4) Finally the (new) knowledge has to be
transformed into action and applied in organizational routines in order to have an effect on
organizational behavior e.g. developing new leaderships styles or new products and services.
These process dimension of organizational learning can be visualized in the following
simplified process model.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
29
Fig. 3: "Process model of organizational learning"
Summing up four dimensions play a conceptual role in the literature on organizational
learning. We suggest that these dimensions can be considered as basic corner-stones of an
integrative conceptual framework for organizational learning theory and the basic architecture
for knowledge management in order to promote organizational learning.
8
Practically a third opportunity to cope with „new“ knowledge exists: Knowledge can be ignored. In our
understanding „ignorance“ implies not to learn. Therefore this option is not discussed.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
30
Fig. 4: Conceptual framework for the management of organizational learning
The management of organizational learning thus has to take into account different systemlevels and their inter-connectivenes by learning to deal with complexity and interdependent
variables on different system levels. Individuals with their learning capabilities and possible
emotional defenses derived from anxiety and fear of uncertainty in unstable settings, teams as
social systems that function according to very specific group dynamic laws, and knowledge
networks of relations between the core organization members and external suppliers,
customers, knowledge workers and many others.
Furthermore the management of learning modes is a crucial task in order to promote
organizational learning. Here it is necessary for management to understand and act according
to the insight that learning not only is a matter of cognitive, programmed learning, but also of
emotions and behavior (see also Scherer/Tran in this volume). People have to understand new
knowledge and feel that it is right to adopt new assumptions and routines—knowing, feeling
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
31
and acting has to be balanced. A learning culture therefore not only depends on the learning
infrastructure of an organization and the investments into Human Resource Development, but
essentially on the trust that members have towards another and to management e.g. not to
become the victims of innovations they have created.
The third central issue in managing organizational learning is to take into account different
learning types. What type of problem-solving process makes sense in which problem
situation. The correction of simple action-outcome deviations (single loop learning—for
example, adjustments to given standards—should be delegated as far as possible down in the
organizational hierarchy, while action-outcome deviations that can have crucial effects on the
organization9 —in order to identify such situations system thinking again is important—call
for reflective learning processes, where a variety of assumptions and views of organizational
members are questioned.
Finally the management of learning processes along the phases outlined above, is the
backbone of organizational knowledge management (see Pawlowsky et al. chapter on
organizational learning Tools in this handbook). In order to promote the learning process
phase of identification a number of questions have to be dealt with in organizations such as:
Who collects which information about the environment, which environmental fields are most
important in the light of the corporate strategy and which persons and groups have access to
which information and knowledge? Similarly the phase of creation needs specific attention
by defining which knowledge (experiences) exists in the core business and how this
experience can be combined in order to generate new knowledge. Further solutions have to be
developed on how previous experiences are documented such as memos, learning histories,
data-warehouses etc. With respect to the diffusion of knowledge it is necessary to analyze
how information and knowledge flows through the organization and in consequence to
promote important links, depending on different types of knowledge and information.
Questions to be answered here are for example : Which channels are available for
communication processes (horizontal, vertical and temporal) and what type of communication
dominates (Instruction, discussion, dialog)? The modification and integration phase of
organizational learning refers to the process by which new knowledge is integrated into the
9
As an example for a standard operating procedure to ensure different learning types the company Gore has
defined different categories of decisions. Decisions that are “under the water line” of the organizational vessel
and therefore can have crucial consequences for the organization have to be handled with special caution. Here
the “learning” procedure is linked top a collective security net.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
32
organisational memory and into existing theories-in-use or frames of references. Therefore it
is a prerequisite to question existing theories in use and to reflect on the assumptions that are
guiding peoples everyday behavior in the organization and to modify these assumptions
according to new insights. With respect to important issues such as the core business strategy
it may be useful to check and question these assumptions frequently or at least if the outcomes
show a significant deviation from expected developments. In some business areas it may
make sense to promote the development of alternative paradigms or paradoxes (Handy 1995 ,
1997) in order to invent new futures for the organization (see also Galer on scenario-planning
in this volume). Finally, in some cases even though new knowledge seems plausible,
assumptions and routines are not modified according to new insights, either because there are
blockages such as fear of committing faults or because possibly the existing incentive system
in the organization does not reward innovativeness. Maybe the members of the organization,
teams and the organization as a whole might have adopted new knowledge but this does not
lead to behavioral consequences. Attitudes may have changed, teams may have developed
new insights and the organization has proclaimed new standard operating procedures, but
people do not behave accordingly. Here organizational defenses and a culture of resistance
may be the reason and management should question the implicit norms that people act on.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
33
5. Conclusion
Looking at the initial question, which solutions management science can offer practitioners in
order to cope with the challenges of information society, what can be said? Starting with the
general conception of organizational change in management literature we looked into the
contributions on organizational learning and derived five distinct theoretical perspectives on
organizational learning: the decision-making perspective, the system-theory perspective, the
cognitive perspective, the culture perspective and the action learning perspective. Besides the
differences in theoretical foundations of these perspectives there are a number of conceptual
similarities that reappear in most perspectives and make up the core architecture of a
conceptual model on organizational learning. By projecting the different theoretical
assumptions on this conceptual framework it is possible to outline the relevant dimensions for
the management of organizational learning. Management of organizational learning thus
should take focus on - system levels, learning modes, learning types and learning phases - by
adopting a systems-thinking view on learning, by considering different learning modes, such
as cognitive, cultural and action learning, by selecting appropriate learning types that are
useful under different learning circumstances and by managing the learning processes in
organizations, taking into account different blockades and pitfalls of learning along the
process.
With regard to the scientific development of management science the discipline has clearly
started to recognize the new territory of the information and knowledge society. The
contributions also show that there are quite a few assumptions on ways to move in this new
environment. But although these directing guidelines are grounded in a rudimentary
theoretical framework there is hardly any empirical evidence, that gives us confidence that the
direction taken and the discisons made according to these new rules contribute significantly to
organizational success. Therefore besides refining the conceptions of organizational
knowledge systems and knowledge processes in organizations, research is needed on the
relevance of learning processes and knowledge for economic success. Currently there is a
great variety of assumptions about the determining factors of organizational learning but
almost no knowledge about the effects or consequences for organizations. The dependent
variables of our models on organizational learning clearly need more attention in order to
understand the economic necessity and value of learning and knowing that we are so
convinced about.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
34
LITERATURE
Abernathy, W. J. and Wayne, K. (1974). ‘Limits of the Learning Curve’. Harvard Business
Review, 52/5: 56-72.
Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and Environments. N.J. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall.
Aldrich, H. E. (1992). ‘Incommensurable Paradigms? Vital Signs from Three Perspectives’,
in M. Reed, M. Hughes (eds.), Rethinking Organization. London: Penguin Pr., 17-45.
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: Wiley.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming Organizational Defences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Argyris, C. (1992). On Organizational Learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action
Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris,C. and Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II. Readings: Addison-Wesley.
Ashby, W. R. (1963). An Introduction to Cybernetics (5th Impression). London: Chapman
and Hall.
Astley, W. G. and Van de Ven, A. H. (1983). ‘Central Perspectives and Debates in
Organization Theory’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28/2: 245–73.
Axelrod, R. (1976). Structure of Decision. The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton:
University Press.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups.
Chicago: University Press.
Badaracco, J. (1991). The Knowledge Link. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Barnett (1998) Book Review ‘Organizational Learning’. Administrative Science Quarterly
Vol. March 1998, 209.
Bateson, G. (1992). Ökologie des Geistes. 4. Aufl. (engl. Original: Steps to an Ecology of
Mind, 1972). Frankfurt on the Main:
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. New York:
Doubleday.
Bion, W. R. (1968). Experiences in Groups. Routledge: Taylor and Francis Books Ltd.
Baitsch, C. (1993). Was bewegt Organisationen? (What Moves Organisations?) Frankfurt on
the Main: Campus Verlag.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
35
Barnard, C. I. (1956). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Beer, S. (1972). Brain of the Firm. London: Penguin Press.
Beer, S. (1979). The Heart of Enterprise. London: Penguin Press.
Bertalanffy, L. v. (1951). ‘General Systems Theory: A New Approach to the Unity of
Science’. Human Biology 23/, 302–61.
Bieri, J. (1968). ‘Cognitive Complexity and Judgment of Inconsistent Information,’ in: R. P
Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcombe, M. J. Rosenberg, P. H. Tannenbaum
(eds.), Theories of Cognitive Consistency. Chicago: Rand McNally, 633–40.
Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1969). Building a Dynamic Corporation Through Grid
Organisation development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1985). The Managerial Grid III. Houston: Gulf.
Bleicher, K. (1995). ‘Confidence as a Success Critical Factor in Change Management’.
Zeitschrift Führung und Organisation, 64/6: 390–95.
Boisot, M. H. (1995). Information Space: A Framework for Learning in Organizations,
Institutions and Culture. London: Routledge.
Bomke, P., Kreuter, A., and Stegmüller, R. (1993). Diskussion einer Konzeption des
organisatorischen Lernens. Wurzeln, Alternativen und Erkenntnisinteresse. (Discussion of a
Concept of Organizational Learning. Roots, Alternatives, and Knowledge Interest).
Unpublished manuscript, University of Mannheim.
Bougon, M. G., Weick, K. E., and Binkhorst, D. (1977). ‘Cognition in Organisations: An
Analysis of the Utrecht Jazz Orchestra’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 606–39
Boulding, K. E. (1956). The Image. Knowledge in Life and Society. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1991). ‘Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice:
Towards a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation’. Organization Science, 2/1:
40–57.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. (1961). Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. (eds.) (1968). Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. New
York: Harper and Row.
Child, J. (1972). ‘Organizational Structure, Environment, and Performance: The Role of
Strategic Choice’. Sociology, 5/6: 1–22.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
36
Cohen, D. (1998). ‘Toward a Knowledge Context: Report on The First Annual U.C. Berkeley
Forum on Knowledge and the Firm’. California Mangement Review, 40/3: 22–39. (Special
Issue on Knowledge and the Firm).
Cole, R. E. (ed.) (1998). ‘Knowledge and the Firm’. California Mangement Review (Special
Issue on Knowledge and the Firm), 40/3:
Cook, S. D. N. and Yanow, D. (1993). ‘Culture and Organizational Learning’. The Journal of
Management Inquiry, 2/3: 54–83.
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm . Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Daft, R. L. and Weick, K. E. (1984). ‘Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation
Systems’. Academy of Management Review, 9/2: 284–95.
Debreu, G. (1954). ‘Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy’. Econometrica
22: 265–90.
Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. Boston.
Dierkes, M. (1988). Unternehmenskultur und Unternehmensführung – Konzeptionelle
Ansätze und gesicherte Erkenntnisse (Business Culture and Business Leadership—
Conceptional Bases and Proven Knowledge)’. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft (Journal of
Business Management), 58/5: 554–75.
Dierkes, M. (1992). ‘Leitbild, Lernen und Unternehmensentwicklung. Wie Können
Unternehmen sich vorausschauend veränderten Umfeldbedingungen stellen? (Models,
learning and business development. How can firms react to changed environmental
conditions?), in C. Krebsbach-Gnath (ed.), Den Wandel in Unternehmen steuern (Steering
Changes in Firms). Frankfurt: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Verlag, Bereich Wirtschaft,
19–36.
Dodgson, M. (1993). ‘Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures’. Organization
Studies, 14/3: 375–94.
Dörner, D. (1989). Die Logik des Mißlingens. Strategisches Denken in komplexen Situationen
(The Logic of Failure. Strategic Thinking in Complex Situations). Reinbek bei Hamburg:
Rowohlt.
Duncan, R. and Weiss, A. (1979). ‘Organizational Learning: Implications for Organizational
Design’. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1/ISSUE NUMBER: 75–123.
Edmondson, A. and Moingeon, B. (1998). ‘From Organizational Learning to the Learning
Organization’. Management Learning, 29/1: 5–20.
Emery, F. E. (1969). Systems Thinking. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Emery, F. E. and Trist, E. L. (1965). ‘The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments’.
Human Relations, 18/1: 21–32.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
37
Fiol, C. M and Lyles, M. A. (1985). ‘Organizational Learning’. Academy of Management
Review, 10/4: 803–13.
Foerster, H. von (1985). Sicht und Einsicht (Visibility and Insight). Braunschweig/
Wiesbaden: Vieweg.
Forslin, J. and Thulestedt, B-M. (1993). Lärande Organisation. Att utveckla kompetens
tillsammans (Learning Organizations. Joint Development of Competences). Stockholm:
Publica.
French, W. L. and Bell, C. H. (1973). Organization Development—Behavioural Science
Interventious for Organization. N.J.: Englewood Cliffs.
Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., and Martin, J. (eds.) (1991).
Reframing Organizational Culture. Newbury Park: Sage.
Garratt, B.(1990). Creating a Learning Organization. A Guide to Leadership, Learning and
Development. Cambridge: Director Books.
Gibson, R. (ed.) (1997). Rethinking the Future. London: Brealey.
Gioia, D. A. (1986). ‘Conclusion: The State of the Art in Organizational Social Cognition: A
Personal View’, in H. P. Sims Jr. and D. A. Gioia (eds.), The Thinking Organization.
Dynamics of Organizational Social Cognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 336–56.
Gioia, D. A. (1986). ‘Symbols, Scripts, and Sensemaking: Creating Meaning in the
Organizational Experience’, in H. P. Sims Jr. and D. A. Gioia (eds.), The Thinking
Organization. Dynamics of Organizational Social Cognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 49–
74.
Gomez, P. (1981) Modelle und Methoden des systemorientierten Managements (Models and
Methods of Systems-based Management). Bern/Stuttgart: Paul Haupt.
Gray, B., Bougon, M. G., and Donnellon, A. (1985). ‘Organizations as Constructions and
Destructions of Meaning’. Journal of Management, 11/2: 83–98.
Greiner, L. E. (1972). ‘Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow’. Harvard Business
Review, 7/8 37–46.
Grundy, T. (1994). Strategic Learning in Action—How to Accelerate and Sustain Business
Change. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hall, R. I. (1984). ‘The Natural Logic of Management Policy Making: Its Implications for the
Survival of an Organization’. Management Science, 3/8: 905–27.
Handy, C. (1994). The Age of Paradox. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Handy, C. (1995). The Age of Unreason. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.
Handy, C. (1997). ‘Finding Sense in Uncertainty’, in R. Gibson (ed.), Rethinking the Future.
London: Brealey, 16–33.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
38
Hannan, M. T. and Carroll, G. R. (1992). Dynamics of Organizational Populations. New
York/Oxford: Doubleday.
Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J. (1977). ‘The Population Ecology of Organizations’. American
Journal of Sociology, 82/5: 929–64.
Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Hawkins, P. (1991). ‘The Spiritual Dimension of the Learning Organization’. Management,
Education and Development, 22, Part 3, 172–87.
Hayes, R. H., Wheelwright, S. C., and Clark, K. B. (1988). Dynamic Manufacturing:
Creating The Learning Organization. London: The Free Press.
Hedberg, B. L. T. (1981). ‘How Organisations Learn and Unlearn,’ in: P. C. Nyström and W.
H. Starbuck (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Design. New York, London: Oxford
University Press, 8–27.
Huber, G. P. (1991). ‘Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and Literatures’.
Organization Science, 2/1: 88–115.
Inglis, S. (1994). Making the Most of Action Learning. Gower: Aldershot.
Jelinek, M. (1979). Institutionalizing Innovation. A Study of Organizational Learning
Systems. New York, London et al.: Praeger.
Jelinek, M. and Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). The Innovation Marathon. Lessons from High
Technology Firms. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Jelinek, M. and Litterer, J. A. (1994). ‘Toward a Cognitive Theory of Organizations’, in C.
Stubbart, J. R. Meindel, J. F. Porac (eds.), Advances in Managerial Cognition and
Organizational Information Processing (Vol. 5). Greenwich, CO: JAI Press, 3–41.
Jensen, M. C. (1983). ‘Organization Theory and Methodology’. The Accounting Review,
58/ISSUE NUMBER?: 319–39.
Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard. Translating Strategy into
Action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kast, F. E. and Rosenzweig, J. E. (1970). Organization and Management: A Systems and
Contingency Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York, Santa
Barbara: Wiley. (11st print 1966)
Katzenbach J. R. and Smith, D. K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
39
Klimecki; R., Probst, G., and Eberl, P. (1991). ‘Systementwicklung als Managementproblem’
(The Development of Systems as a Managerial Problem), in W. H. Staehle, J. Sydow, (eds.),
Managementforschung 1 (Management Research 1), Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 103–62.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). ‘Management and the Learning Process’. California Management
Review, 17/3: 21–31.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Krogh, v. G, Roos, J. (eds.) (1996). Managing Knowledge. Sage: London.
Krogh, v. G., Roos, J., and Slocum, K. (1996). ‘An Essay on Corporate Epistemology’, in
G. van Krogh and J. Roos (eds.), Managing Knowledge. Sage: London, 157–83
Krogh, v. G., Roos, J., and Yip, G. (1996). A Note on the Epistemology of Globalizing Firms,
in G. van Krogh and J. Roos (eds.), Managing Knowledge. Sage: London, 203–17.
Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and Environment. Managing
Differentiation and Integration. Boston: Harvard University.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of
Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Levitt, B. and March, J. G. (1988). ‘Organizational Learning’. Annual Review of Sociology,
14/: 319–39.
Lewin, K. (1947). ‘Frontiers in Group Dynamics: II. Channel of Group Life: Social Planning and
Action Research’. Human Relations, 1/: 143–53.
Lievegoed, B. C. (1974). Organisationen im Wandel (Organizations in Change). Bern,
Stuttgart: Haupt.
Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management . New York: McGraw-Hill.
Likert, R. and Likert , J. G. (1976). New Ways of Managing Conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer Allgemeinen Theorie (Social Systems. An
Outline of a General Theory). Frankfurt on theMain: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, N. (1989). Legimitation durch Verfahren (Legitimation by Procedures). Frankfurt on
the Main: Suhrkamp.
Lullies, V., Bollinger, H., and Weltz, F. (1993). Wissenslogistik: Über den betrieblichen
Umgang mit Wissen bei Entwicklungsvorhaben (Knowledge Logistics—Handling Knowledge in
Research and Development). Frankfurt on the Main: Campus.
Lundberg, C. C. (1989). ‘On Organizational Learning: Implications and Opportunities for
Expanding Organizational Development’, in Research in Organizational Change and
Development, (Vol. 3); 61-82.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
40
Malik, F. (1987). ‘Selbstorganisation im Management’ (Self-organization in Management), in
K. W. Kratky and F. Wallner (eds.), Grundprinzipien der Selbst-Organisation (General
Principles of Self-organization). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Mann, F. C. (1961). ‘Studying and Creating Change,’ in: W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, and R.
Chin (eds.), Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 605–15.
March, J. G. and Olson, J. P. (1975). ‘The Uncertainty of the Past: Organizational Learning
under Ambiguity’. European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 2/3 147–71.
March, J. G. and Olson, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and Choices in Organizations. Bergen, Oslo,
Troms: Universitätsforlaget.
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations (2nd printing). New York, London:
John Wiley.
Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1987). Der Baum der Erkenntnis (The Tree of Knowledge). Bern:
Scherz.
McGuire, W. J. (1968). ‘The Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change,’ in INITIAL Lindzey
and E. Aronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology III, Cambridge: Addison Wesley,
136–314.
McKelvey, B. and Aldrich, H. (1983). ‘Populations, Natural Selection, and Applied
Organizational Science’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28/1: 101–28.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mitroff, I. I. and Kilman, R. H. (1976). ‘On Organizational Stories: An Approach to the Design
and Analysis of Organizations Through Myths and Stories’, in R. H. Kilman, R. Pondy, D. P.
Slevin (eds.), The Management of Organization Design (Vol 1). New York: North Holland.
Morecroft, J. D. W. (1988). ‘System Dynamics and Microworlds for Policymakers’.
European Journal of Operational Research, 35: 301–20.
Morecroft, J. D. W. and Sterman, J. D. (1992). Modeling for Learning Organizations.
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Newbury Park, London: Sage.
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Nonaka, I. (1988). ‘Creating Organizational Order out of Chaos: Self-Renewal in Japanese
Firms’. California Management Review, 30/1: 7–73.
Nonaka, I. (1991). ‘Managing the Firm as an Information Creation Process’, in J. R. Meindl,
R. L. Cardy, S. M. Puffer (eds.), Advances in Information Processing in Organizations. A
Research Annual (Vol. 4). Greenwich, London: JAI Press, 239–75.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
41
Nonaka, I. (1994). ‘A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation’.
Organizational Science, 5/1: 14–37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company (How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998). ‘The Concept of "Ba"—Building a Foundation for
Knowledge Creation’. California Management Review, 40/3: 54–84.
Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Glencoe: Free Press.
Pautzke, G. (1989). Die Evolution der Organisatorischen Wissensbasis. Bausteine zu einer
Theorie des Organisatorischen Lernens (The Evolution of the Organizational Knowledge
Base. Foundations of a Theory of Organizational Learning). Herrsching: B. Kirsch.
Pawlowsky, P. (1992). ‘Betriebliche Qualifikationsstrategien und Organisationales Lernen
(Organizational Training Strategies and Organizational Learning)’, in W. Staehle and P.
Conrad (eds.), Managementforschung (Vol. 2). (Management Research 2). Berlin: DeGruyter,
177–238.
Pawlowsky, P. (1994).Wissensmanagement in der Lernenden Organisation
Habilitationsschrift. (Knowledge Management in the Learning Organization—Postdoctoral
thesis). Unpubl. University of Paderborn.
Pawlowsky, P. (1998) (ed.). Wissensmanagement – Erfahrungen und Perspektiven.
(Knowledge Management—Experiences and Perspectives). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., and Boydell, T. (1991). The Learning Company. London, New York
et al.: McGraw-Hill.
Pedler , M. (1997). ‘Interpreting Action Learning’, in J. Burgoyne and M. Reynolds,
Management Learning: Integrating Perspectives in Theory and Practice, 248–64.
Penrose, E. (1995). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and Organization Theory. Boston et al: Pitmann.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge.
Pondy, L. R., Frost, P. J., and Morgan, G. (eds.) (1983). Organizational Symbolism.
Greenwich, CO: JAI Press.
Probst, G. (1987). ‘Selbstorganisation und Entwicklung’ (Self-organization and
Development)’. Die Unternehmung (The Business), Vol 41/ 1981: 242–55.
Quinn, R. E., Cameron, K. S. (1983). ‘Organizational Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of
Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence’. Management Science, Jan. 1983: 33–51.
Quinn, J. B. (1992). Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowledge and Service Based Paradigm for
Industry. New York: The Free Press.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
42
Reinhardt, R. (1993). Das Modell organisationaler Lernfähigkeit und die Gestaltung
lernfähiger Organisationen (The Model of Organizational Learning Ability and the Design of
Learnable Organizations). Frankfurt on the Main: Lang.
Revans, R. W. (1980). Action Learning—New Techniques for Management. London: Blond
and Briggs.
Revans, R. W. (1982). ‘The Enterprise as a Learning System’, in R. W. Revans (ed.), The
Origins and Growth of Action Learning. Goch/Chartwell Bratt.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (3rd ed.). New York, London :
Rumelhart, D. E.(1984). ‘Schemata and the Cognitive System’, in R. S. Wyer and T. K. Srull
(eds.), Handbook of Social Cognition (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, London: Lawrence, 161–88.
Sackmann, S. A. (1991). Cultural Knowledge in Organizations. Exploring the Collective
Mind. Newbury Park: Sage.
Salancik, G. R and Porac, J. F (1986). ‘Distilled Ideologies: Values Derived from Causal
Reasoning in Complex Environments’, in H. P. Sims Jr. and D. A. Gioia (eds.), The Thinking
Organization. Dynamics of Organizational Social Cognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 75–
101.
Sandelands, L. E. and Stablein, R. E. (1987). ‘The Concept of Organization Mind’, in S. B.
Bacharach. (ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 5). Greenwich, London:
JAI Press, 135–62.
Schein, E. H. (1969). Process Consultation: Its Role in Organization Development. Reading,:
Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. (1984). ‘Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture’. Sloan
Management Review, 25: 3–16.
Schein, E. H. (1991). ‘What is Culture?’, in P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C.
Lundberg, and J. Martin (eds.), Reframing Organizational Culture. Newbury Park: Sage,
243–53.
Scholl, W., Hoffmann, L., and H.-C. Gierschner (1993). Innovation und Information. Wie in
Unternehmen neues Wissen produziert wird. Institut für Arbeits-, Sozial- und
Organisationspsychologie (Innovation and Information. How New Knowledge is Produced in
Businesses). Institute of Industrial-, Social- and Organizational Psychology). Unpublished
manuscript. Humboldt-University of Berlin.
Schreyögg, G. (1996). Organisation (Organization). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Schreyögg, G. and Noss, C. (1995). ‘The Change from the Organization Development to the
Learning Organization’. Betriebswirtschaft, 55/2: 169–85.
Schumann, J. (1976). Grundzüge der mikroökonomischen Theorie. (Basics of the
Microeconomical Theory). Berlin: Springer.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
43
Scott, W. A. (1969). ‘Structure of Natural Cognitions’. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 12: 261–78.
Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations. Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (3rd print).
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Seifert, M. and Pawlowsky, P. (1998). Innerbetriebliches Vertrauen als Verbreitungsgrenze
atypischer Beschäftigungsformen (Internal Trust and the Spreading of Unusual Occupation
forms). Mitteilung aus der Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, 31.Jg/1998: 599–611.
Selvini Palazzoli, M., Anolli, L., Di Blasio, P., Giossi, L., Pisano, J., Ricci, C., Sacchi, M.,
and Ugazio,V. (1988). Hinter den Kulissen der Organisation (Behind the Sceneries of
Organizations). (3.Aufl.) Stuttgart.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
New York: Bantam Doubleday.
Senge, P. (1990). ‘The Leader´s New Work: Building Learning Organizations’. Sloan
Management Review, 32/1: 7–23.
Senge, P.and Sterman, J. D. (1992). ‘Systems Thinking and Organizational Learning: Acting
Locally and Thinking Globally in the Organization of the Future’, in T. A. Kochan and M.
Useem (eds.), Transforming Organizations. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
353–71.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., and Smith, B. J. (1994). The Fifth Discipline
Fieldbook. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Shrivastava, P. and Mitroff, I. (1983). ‘Frames of Reference Managers Use: A Study in
Applied Sociology of Knowledge’. Advances in Strategic Management, Vol 1/: 161–82.
Shrivastava, P. and Schneider, S. (1984). ‘Organizational Frames of Reference’. Human
Relations, 37/10: 795–809.
Sims, H. P., Jr. and Gioia, D. A. (eds.) (1986). The Thinking Organization. Dynamics of
Organizational Social Cognition. San Francisco, London: Jossey-Bass.
Smircich, L. (1983). ‘Organizations as Shared Meanings’, in L. R. Pondy, P. Frost, and G.
Morgan (eds.), Organizational Symbolism. Greenwich: JAI Press, 253–312.
Smircich, L. and Stubbart, C. (1985). ‘Strategic Management in an Enacted World’. Academy
of Management Review, 10/4: 724–36.
Starbuck, W. H. (1982). ‘Congealing Oil: Inventing Ideologies to Justify Acting Ideologies
out’. Journal of Management Studies, 19/1: 3–27.
Starbuck, W. H. and Hedberg, B. L. T. (1977). ‘Saving an Organization from a Stagnating
Environment’, in Thorelli (ed.), Strategy + Structure = Performance. Bloomington:
University Press, 249–58.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
44
Stata, R. (1989). ‘Organizational Learning—The Key to Management Innovation’. Sloan
Management Review. 30/3: 63–74.
Steinmann, H. and Schreyögg, G. (1993). Management – Grundlagen der
Unternehmensführung. Konzepte, Funktionen, Fallstudien. (Management—Bases of
Management: Concepts, Functions, and Case Studies). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Streufert,S. and Streufert, S. C. (1978). Behavior in the Complex Environment. New York,
Toronto et al.: Wiley.
Streufert, S. and Swezey, R. W. (1986). Complexity, Managers, and Organizations. Orlando,
San Diego et al.: Academic Press.
Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge
Based Assets. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive Behavior in Animal and Men. New York: Appleton Century.
Tsang, E. W. K. (1997). ‘Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A
Dichotomy between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research’. Human Relations, 50/1: 73–89.
Tushman, M. L. and Nadler, D. A. (1978). ‘Information Processing as an Integrating Concept
in Organizational Design’. Academy of Management Review, 3/7: 613–24.
Ulrich, P. (1984). ‘Systemsteuerung und Kulturentwicklung’ (System-management and
Cultural Development). Die Unternehmung (The Business), 38/4: 303–25.
Ulrich, H. (1984). Management . Bern: Haupt.
Ulrich, H. and Probst, G. J. B. (eds.) (1984). Self-Organization and Management of Social
Systems. Heidelberg: Decker.
Ulrich, H. and Probst, G. J. B. (1990). Anleitung zum ganzheitlichen Denken und Handeln
(Guideline to Integral Thinking and Action). Bern: Haupt.
Vester, F. (1991). Neuland des Denkens. Vom technokratischen zum kybernetischen Zeitalter
(New Territory of Thinking. From Technocratic to the Cybernatic age). Stuttgart: Deutsche
Verlags Anstalt (7. Print.).
Vicari, S., von Krogh, G., Roos, J., and Mahnke, V. (1996). ‘Knowledge Creation through
Cooperative Experimentation’, in G. v. Krogh and J. Roos (ed.)?, Managing Knowledge:
Perspectives on Cooperation and Competition. London etc.: Sage, 184–202.
Wahren, H.-K. (1996). Das lernende Unternehmen – Theorie und Praxis des Lernenden
Unternehmens (The Learning Enterprise—Theory and Practise of the Learning Enterprise).
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Pawlowsky: Management science and organizational learning – Hdb.OL
45
Walsh, J. P. and Ungson, G. R. (1991). ‘Organizational Memory’. Academy of Management
Review, 16/1: 57–91.
Wiegand, M. (1996). Prozesse organisationalen Lernens (Processes of Organizational
Learning). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Weick, K. E. (1969). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Menlo Park, London: AddisonWesley.
Weick, K. E. and Bougon, M. G. (1986). ‘Organizations as Cognitive Maps: Charting Ways
to Sucess and Failure’, in: H. P. Sims Jr. and D. A. Gioia (eds.), The Thinking Organization.
Dynamics of Organizational Social Cognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 102–35.
Wilensky, H. L. (1967). Organizational Intelligence. Knowledge and Policy in Government
and Industry. New York, London: Basic Books.
Willke, H. (1987). Systemtheorie (System-Theory). Stuttgart: Fischer.
Willke, H. (1987). ‘Strategien der Intervention in Autonome Systeme’ (Intervention Strategies in
Autonomous Systems), in D. Baecker (ed.), Theorie als Passion (Theory as Passion). Frankfurt
on the Main: Suhrkamp, 333–61.
Willke, H. (1998). Systemisches Wissensmanagement (Systemical Knowledge Management).
Stuttgart: Lucius and Lucius.
Wikström, S., Normann, R., Anell, B., Ekvall, G., Forslin, J., and Skörvad, P-H. (1992).
Kunskap och Värde. Företag som ett kunskapsprocessande och värdeskapande system.
Stockholm: Nordstedts. (engl. 1994: Knowledge and Value. London et al.: Routledge)
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). ‘Social Facilitation’. Science, 1/1: 71–88.
Zand, D. E. (1977). ‘Vertrauen und Problemlösungsverhalten von Managern’ (Trust and
Problem-Solving Behaviour of Managers), in H. E. Lück (ed.), Vertrauen, Verantwortung.
Ergebnisse der Erforschung prosozialen Verhaltens. (Confidence, Responsibility. Results of
the Prosocial Behaviour-Research). Stuttgart: Klett, 61–74.
Zimmerman, L. J. (1961). Geschichte der theoretischen Volkswirtschaftslehre (History of
Theoretical Economic Science). (2nd print). Köln-Deutz: Bund-Verlag.